HOUSE'S MODEL OF TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Basic Introduction/Background

1. Being a cautious researcher about translation studies, House rejected all the contemporary theories, models, and studies, and called them insufficient or misleading in order to enhance the quality of translation.
2. Gave her a detailed model describing the errors, language, and cultural differences in the Source Text (ST), and (TT).
3. She also explained Individual textual functions, and genres in a comprehensive manner.
4. Model focused entirely on the ST-TT Analysis.
5. Explained how a translator attempts to mislead, misguide, and hide important, sometimes least important details, cultural elements, and other language trends from the reader of the Target Language (Translated Text).
6. Her attempt to study Individual textual function and genre is quite similar to that of Halliday's studies in translation & discourse.

Multiple Revisions

1. She first gave this model in 1977, and then partly revised it in 1981.
2. This version of the model attracted serious criticism for its insufficient details.
3. Later, she managed to tackle the criticism by revising it in 1997, and now we are studying her latest revision made in 2015.

Have a Glance First.

1. This comparative model draws on various and sometimes complex taxonomies, but its central point is a Register analysis of both ST and TT.
2. The model focuses on the lexical, syntactic, and textual means used to construct Register.

 

1. Field

1. Subject Matter/Social Action of the Text.
2. What is the text all about, and how it is being represented? For example, informal dialogues, instructional manuals, speeches, debates, reports of delivery goods, pricing, application, text message, apology letter, threat emails, and the list goes on.
3. Subject matter may refer to the field in which it is written, for example medical, physical, literary, non-fictional, scientific, and non-technical.
4. A person with great command of the English Language, still can't understand medical research articles written in English, because of register differences.
5. Strand of meaning is the ideational representation of the world/event.

 

2. Tenor

1. Tenor studies the relationship between the addresser/addressee, talker/Listener, Writer/Reader, and Speaker/audience.
2. It simply reveals who is speaking or communicating to whom, and the relationship between them.
3. The relationship can be of equal rank, superordinate/coordinate, colleagues, and teacher/student.
4. It studies the interpersonal relationship of the language users in a detailed manner so that translated, or target text is not compromised.
5. Strand of meaning is interpersonal enacts social relationships.

3. Mode

1. The form of communication is termed as a mode in the register analysis.
2. It can be written, spoken, online, formal, or informal.
3. The mode includes word choice, the delivery of written or spoken text, the organization of words into sentences and paragraphs, and the development and coherence of words and ideas.
4. Strand of meaning is textual explaining coherence and other hanging elements.

What is Genre?

1. A genre is described by Martin as 'a staged, goal-oriented, purposeful activity in which speakers engage as members of our culture.
2. Examples of genres examined from this perspective include service encounters, research reports, academic essays, casual conversations, description, procedure, and exposition-type text.
3. Genre refers to the type and structure of language typically used for a particular purpose in a particular context.
4. Dudley-Evans and St. John mentioned that the two terms might best be seen as two overlapping terms where discourse analysis is an umbrella term that includes the examination of characteristic features of genres.

Confused???

Register and Genre are quite similar terms, indicating similar components, and elements of the language differing only on the level of analysis as the register is more focused on the textual element, and genre is more absorbed with the cultural, social, and sociopolitical context of language use.

 

Application of Theory

(1) A profile is produced for ST Register.

(2) To this is added a description of the ST genre realized by the Register.

(3) Together, this allows a 'statement of function' to be made for the ST, including the ideational and interpersonal component of that function (in other words, what information is being conveyed and what the relationship is between sender and receiver).

(4) The same descriptive process is then carried out for the TT.

(5) The TT profile is compared to the ST profile and a statement of 'mismatches' or errors is produced. These are categorized according to the situational dimensions of Register and genre. Such dimensional errors are referred to as 'covertly erroneous errors' (House 1997: 45) to distinguish them from 'overtly erroneous errors', which are denotative mismatches (which give an incorrect meaning compared to the ST) and target system errors (which do not conform to the formal grammatical or lexical requirements of the TL).

(6) A 'statement of quality' is then made of the translation.

(7) Finally, the translation can be categorized into one of two types: 'overt translation' or 'covert translation.

Overt/Covert Translation

1. Overt translation makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is a translation. It is openly (overtly) a translation and is faithful to the source text and culture.
2. Covert translation, on the other hand, does hide the fact that it is a translation.
3. It is faithful to the target language and culture.
4. That may involve some adjustments such as replacing source language idioms with target language equivalents, making some implicit information understood by an intended reader of the source text explicit for the benefit of the target culture reader, and in the extreme case, departing substantially from some aspects of the source text in order to accomplish the purpose of the translation for the intended audience. Juliane House first suggested the terms overt and covert.

Covert Translation

For example, among the texts analyzed by House is an extract (1997: 147-57) from a polemical history text about civilian Germans' involvement in the holocaust (ST English, TT German). A pattern of differences is identified in the dimensions of Field and Tenor. In Field, the frequency of the word German, which serves to highlight German civilian responsibility in the events, is reduced in the TT. In Tenor, there is a reduction in intensifiers, superlatives, and another emotive lexis. This makes the author's critical stance less obvious in the TT, and House even suggests that it influences the genre. Whereas the ST is a controversial popular history book (even though it is based on the author's doctoral thesis), the German TT is a more formal academic treatise.

Common Errors

ST: las abuelas volvieron a Cuba escandalizadas de cuánto lo habían cambiado (lit. the grandmothers returned to Cuba outraged at how much they had changed him);

TT: the grandmothers returned to Cuba outraged at how much he had changed.

*So, the choice of a nominalization and passive such as The decision made at the meeting was to reject your appeal may hide a reality that could otherwise be expressed by an active I and the other members of the Committee have decided that we are rejecting your appeal. ​​

Download PPT

~  ~  ~